Group 8 – Critique Responses

Review by Zach Duer:Review on Quality of Proposed System: He mentioned that there were some parts of our system that needed more thought; this included weight distribution, hot climates, and whether this really helps with the sense of community.

Response: The main take away was to have the D-Dome be able to transform into a backpack for another way to carry it on person. This will be applicable when it is a warm day so that the user will not be wearing a hot suit throughout the day. Zach also touched on weight distribution, for the suit form as well as the backpack, which can be modified by making the components more modular. If the floor mat and other non essential parts needed to inflate the dome then have them stored in a backpack like pouch that can be accessed after the initial inflation takes place.

Review by Kurt Luther:

Notable feedback: When we asked about how viable distributing our system would be in a collapsed economy, he suggested rolling back our world to the transition period where the economy is on the verge of imminent collapse so that people could actually justify the value in it.

He also supported our idea of the psychology of groups deterring hostile individuals or entities. He mentioned that individuals camping are statistically more susceptible to bear attacks than groups.

Response: This was crucial feedback because we had a difficult time justifying how people would trade their goods or services in a world where this product would be seen as a luxury. It also justifies how we could manufacture this product in a world before resources (i.e. depleting Tyvek, solar panels, air pumps) start rapidly depleting.

The statistic about bear attacks grounds the psychological deterrent in a more practical context. We were looking for more ways to extend our product to modern society and its problems.

Review by Kari Zacharias:

Process and Methods: “… could use much more research on community-building.”Quality of proposed system: “I’m not sure what the [unknown] of this system are ‘resisting,’ aside from death.”

Response: Our explanation of the “resistance” portion of this prompt derives from our product’s ability to bring people together. In our imagined reality, where nomadic scavenging is considered the norm, we wanted to challenge the general notion of hostility, which usually occurs in fictional worlds like the one we have built i.e. “survive at all costs.”

The above comments from Ms. Zacharias indicate that we need to expand upon this “resistance” in order to properly address the prompt. Why would a series of communal tents suddenly encourage strangers to trust one another in a supposedly dangerous environment? Ms. Zacharias’s concerns allow us to see that we need to address the sense of community between tents and acquire more research concerning what it takes to make a community inviting to strangers. Conversely, we might be able to refactor our world in order to make the “resistance” more acceptable. Perhaps there could be a driving force within our world that would more naturally bring strangers together. These are important things to address that we

Review by Margaret Ellis:

Quality of proposed system, How will the system handle the amount of power will need to run the security system when the tents are place into wheel wagon mode as well the power to self inflate the tent.

Response: Our explanation of to the power problem that may happen is that come up with back up power supply. That if the user is in the area where it very cloudy and that the solar panel will be able gain a enough power to run everything. We came up with an idea that it comes with a back up power supply. That if the solar panel does gain enough energy to run everything but with the backup power supply the user can pump up the tent and storage the energy for the alarm system.

The information above gave us a good system depending the location of where the user is using it. That this will add a good back up supply of the power.